coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Istanbul.
5.  In 1989 the applicant signed an agreement with the General Directorate of Land Office attached to the Ministry of Finance. Accordingly, the Land Office undertook to allocate a plot of land to the applicant and the applicant agreed to pay a certain amount of money to the authorities. The Land Office however failed to make the transfer and therefore on 18 October 1995 paid back the applicant’s money with interest.
6.  Alleging that he had suffered financial loss, on 21 December 1994 the applicant brought compensation proceedings in the Istanbul Administrative Court against the Land Office.
7.  On 27 December 1995 the Istanbul Administrative Court declared lack of jurisdiction and sent the file to the Ankara Administrative Court.
8.  On 26 March 1997 the Ankara Administrative Court held that as the Land Office had paid the applicant’s money back with interest, there was no need for the court to rule for pecuniary or non-pecuniary compensation. It accordingly rejected the applicant’s compensation claims.
9.  The applicant appealed and on 18 November 1999 the Council of State, upholding the first-instance court’s reasoning, rejected the applicant’s request.
10.  The applicant further applied for rectification, however his request was rejected by the Council of State on 27 June 2001.
6.  The applicant was born in 1980. She is imprisoned in Gebze Prison.
7.  On 10 October 2001 the applicant was at a bus stop in İçerenköy in Istanbul when she was arrested by plain-clothes police officers on suspicion of being a member of the PKK. She was taken to the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Istanbul State Security Directorate. On the same day, the police officers drafted an arrest protocol stating that the applicant had been arrested on account of her involvement in PKK-related activities. The applicant signed this protocol.
8.  The applicant's lawyer challenged the arrest before the investigating judge of the Istanbul State Security Court and requested that the applicant be released from detention. Her request was dismissed.
9.  On 11 October 2001 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court extended the detention period until 14 October 2001.
10.  On 14 October 2001 the applicant could see her lawyer for a short period of time following the permission of the public prosecutor.
11.  On 15 October 2001 police officers from the Anti-Terrorism Branch requested that the applicant's custody period be extended for three more days. The single judge of the Istanbul State Security Court granted the request and extended the custody period until 17 October 2001 pursuant to Article 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant's lawyer challenged this decision before a panel of three judges of the Istanbul State Security Court and requested that the applicant be brought before a judge. Her request was dismissed.
12.  On 16 October 2001 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor, and thereafter before the investigating judge of the Istanbul State Security Court. Subsequently the judge ordered that the applicant be detained on remand.
13.  On 23 November 2001 the public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Istanbul State Security Court, accusing the applicant of being a member of an illegal armed organisation under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of the Anti-Terrorism Act.
14.  The Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant of the offence and sentenced her to twelve years and six months' imprisonment. The judgment was later upheld by the Court of Cassation on 11 November 2004.
5.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Istanbul.
6.  On an unspecified date, the applicant lodged a set of enforcement proceedings against his debtors in order to enforce the payment of six bonds issued by his debtors between 1980 and 1981. The enforcement proceedings lasted for almost ten years. In 1993 the applicant was paid a sum of 54,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL), interest included.
7.  On 25 January 1994 the applicant brought an action before the Istanbul Commercial Court against his debtors and requested an additional compensation under Article 105 of the Code of Obligations, for the damage he sustained as a result of the delay in payment. He alleged that the payment was made with ten years of delay and that his loss resulting from the increase in inflation during this period exceeded the interest awarded to him for late payment.
8.  On 17 April 1995 an expert report was submitted to the court. The expert report stated that the applicant should not be awarded additional compensation on the ground that he was unable to substantiate the damages he sustained against inflation.
9.  On 5 October 1995 the Istanbul Commercial Court dismissed the applicant’s request for the reasons stated in the expert’s report. The applicant appealed.
10.  On 24 December 1996 the Court of Cassation quashed the first- instance court’s decision on the ground that the applicant had sustained damages due to the delay in payment and that he should be awarded compensation. The case was remitted to the first instance court.
11.  On 29 September 1997 the first-instance court adhered to its first decision. The applicant appealed.
12.  On 3 November 1999 the Joint Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation upheld the first-instance court’s decision. The applicant’s request for rectification was dismissed on 24 April 2000. This decision was served on the applicant on 24 May 2000.
6.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Istanbul.
7.  On 14 May 1990 the Bakirköy District Governorship granted the applicant a licence to serve alcohol in his restaurant.
8.  On an unspecified date, the quarter of Güngören, where the applicant’s restaurant was located, became a separate district. On 13 October 1997, the Güngören District Governorship revoked the applicant’s licence on the ground that the applicant’s restaurant was outside the designated area for restaurants serving alcohol.
9.  On 27 October 1997 the applicant was notified of this decision and was barred from running the restaurant.
10.  On 3 November 1997 the applicant brought an action before the Istanbul Administrative Court for the annulment of the Güngören District Governorship’s decision of 13 October 1997. He also requested that the decision be stayed.
11.  On 23 January 1998 the Istanbul Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s request for a stay of proceedings. The applicant objected to this decision. On 18 March 1998 the Regional Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s challenge.
12.  On 11 June 1998 the Istanbul Administrative Court delivered its judgment on the merits of the case. The court decided that the revocation order of the Güngören District Governorship was in conformity with the law. The applicant appealed against this judgment to the Supreme Administrative Court[1], and as a preliminary step, he once again requested the Supreme Administrative Court to stay the execution of the Governorship’s decision. On 12 November 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court decided on the request for a stay and rejected it.
13.  On 15 February 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law, and upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.
14.  The applicant requested rectification of this decision. On 24 June 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s request.
15.  On 15 August 2002 the applicant was notified of the Supreme Administrative Court’s final decision.
5.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Moscow.
6.  On 1 April 1996 the applicant retired from the position as a consultant at the Ministry of Finance of Russia.
7.  In 1996 – 1997 he repeatedly applied to the Ministry of Labour for additional retirement benefits due to former State employees. By decision of 3 October 1997 a deputy Minister granted the applicant’s request and increased his pension as of 9 September 1997.
8.  Thereafter the applicant sued the Ministry of Labour seeking arrears for the period between 1 April 1996 and 8 September 1997.
9.  On 19 December 1997 the Basmanny District Court of Moscow dismissed his claims, stating that the applicant had only become eligible for a higher pension as of 9 September 1997 and therefore he had no right to arrears.
10.  On 14 April 1998 the Moscow City Court set aside the first instance judgment and remitted the case for a fresh examination.
11.  On 15 September 1999 the Basmanny District Court ruled in the applicant’s favour confirming his entitlement to additional retirement benefits as of 1 April 1996 and ordered the Ministry of Labour to re-calculate his pension.
12.  No appeal was lodged, and on an unspecified date the judgment of 15 September 1999 became final.
13.  On 25 November 1999 enforcement proceedings commenced.
14.  On 26 October 2000 a deputy Prosecutor General lodged an extraordinary appeal against the judgment of 15 September 1999.
15.  On 16 November 2000 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court examined and rejected the extraordinary appeal in supervisory review proceedings, thus upholding the judgment of 15 September 1999.
16.  On 2 February 2001 a deputy Prosecutor General filed another extraordinary appeal against the judgment of 15 September 1999 and the decision of 16 November 2000.
17.  On 23 February 2001 the Civil Section of the Supreme Court of Russia, by way of supervisory review, quashed the judgment of 15 September 1999 and the decision of 16 November 2000, and remitted the case to the first instance court. It is not clear whether the applicant has pursued the proceedings.
18.  In 2001 – 2003 the applicant unsuccessfully applied for supervisory review of the decision of 23 February 2001.
19.  During the fresh examination, on 27 February 2003, the Basmanny District Court dismissed the applicant’s claims.
20.  On 30 July 2003 the applicant appealed against the above judgment.
21.  By decision of 29 August 2003 the Basmanny District Court refused to examine the applicant’s appeal brief as having been lodged outside the statutory time-limit of ten days.
6.  The applicants, who were born in 1964, 1941, 1963, 1958, 1963, 1978, 1977, 1977, 1964, 1960, 1949, 1978, 1973, 1979, 1970, 1961, 1966, 1968 and 1961 respectively, live in Adıyaman.
7.  Nine of the applicants, namely Bedir Çetin, Hüseyin Duran, İsmail Minkara, Hacı Pamuk, Abuzer Aslan, Şükrü Karadağ, Rıza Kılınç, Ramazan Sertkaya and Muhammet Emin Toprak, were the regional administrators of the HADEP (Halkın Demokrasi Partisi- People’s Democracy Party) in the province of Adıyaman.
8.  The rest of the applicants are the relatives of prisoners who were convicted of being members of an illegal organisation, namely the PKK at the time of occurrence of the below mentioned events.
9.  Following the capture of Abdullah Öcalan in Italy, prisoners who were convicted of being members of the PKK went on a hunger strike in several prisons. Some of these prisoners set themselves on fire in protest at the arrest.
10.  On 16 December 1998, eleven of the applicants, namely Gülseren Öner, Hüseyin Duran, İsmail Turap, Fatma Doymaz, Nazife Bilgiç, Sakine Doymaz, Hüseyin Aslan, Fatma Dolaş, Arzu Doymaz, Hasan Gül and Sakine Sürgülü gathered in the Adıyaman regional office of HADEP and started a collective hunger strike in protest at the arrest of Abdullah Öcalan.
11.  On 19 December 1998 the Adıyaman Public Prosecutor issued a search warrant in respect of the Adıyaman regional office of HADEP. On the same day the police conducted a search of the Adıyaman regional office of HADEP. According to the arrest report of the same date, the police arrested forty-five people including the applicants, who were present in the office when the search was taking place except Hüseyin Duran.
12.  The arrest report, that was signed by the arrested persons including the applicants, revealed that publications of a separatist nature and flags of the PKK were found in the regional office of HADEP.
13.  On 21 November 1998 the applicants Bedir Çetin, Muhammet Emin Toprak, İsmail Minkara and Hüseyin Aslan were tried before the Adıyaman Civil Court for participating in and organising meetings with the aim of disseminating separatist propaganda. The court ordered that the applicants be released pending trial on the same day.
14.  On 31 December 1998 the Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Malatya State Security Court accusing the applicants of aiding the members of a terrorist organisation and requested that they be convicted under Article 169 of the Criminal Code and Section 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
15.  On 6 May 1999 the Malatya State Security Court, considering as evidence the publications of separatist nature and flags of the PKK which had been found in the office, convicted the applicants of aiding a terrorist organisation pursuant to Article 169 of the Criminal Code and sentenced each of them to three years and nine months’ imprisonment.
16.  On 12 April 2000 the applicants appealed against this decision. On 15 May 2000 the Court of Cassation, in a public hearing, upheld the decision of the State Security Court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in the town of Novogrodovka, the Donetsk Region.
5.  On 15 March 2001 the Novogrodovka City Court (hereafter “the City Court”) awarded the applicant UAH 4,791.40[1] against the “Novogrodovskaya” coal mine (a State-owned enterprise, hereafter “the Coal Mine”) in salary arrears. The judgment became final and was sent to the Novogrodovka City Bailiffs’ Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs’ Service”) for compulsory enforcement.
6.  In June 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the City Court against the Bailiffs’ Service in respect of its alleged inactivity.  On 23 August 2001 the City Court rejected this complaint, stating, inter alia, that no fault was attributable to the bailiffs, who had undertaken all necessary measures to secure the execution of the judgment of 15 March 2001 and that the non-enforcement of this judgment was caused by the Coal Mine’s lack of funds. The City Court also indicated that the enforcement proceedings were further impeded by a bankruptcy case pending against the Coal Mine before the Donetsk Regional Court of Arbitration, which on 14 May 2001 prohibited the Bailiffs’ Service from performing any activity that involved the forced sale of the Coal Mine’s assets.  On 5 November 2001 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the City Court. On 18 February 2002 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal.
7.  On 25 February 2003 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy ordered the merger of the Coal Mine with several others into the Selydivvugilia State Company.
8.  In a letter of 21 July 2003, the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant about the following impediments to the execution of the judgment given in his favour:
- the ruling of the Donetsk Regional Court of Arbitration of 14 May 2001, prohibiting the Bailiffs’ Service from performing any activity that involved the forced sale of the Coal Mine’s assets;
- the ruling of the Donetsk Regional Commercial Court of 23 February 2002, barring any attachment or sale of the Coal Mine’s property (both bans above were lifted on 2 April 2003, when the Donetsk Regional Commercial Court terminated the bankruptcy proceedings against the Coal Mine);
- the moratorium on the forced sale of the property of State-owned enterprises introduced by the 2001 Law.
9.  On 1 September 2003, following the transfer of the Coal Mine’s funds to the Selydivvugilia State Company, the Bailiffs’ Service suspended the enforcement proceedings pending the replacement of the debtor in the applicant’s case. On 24 October 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service applied to the City Court for a direction to that effect. On 31 October 2003 the City Court ordered that the debtor in the case be replaced by the Selydivvugilia State Company. On 19 November 2003 the enforcement case was transmitted to the Selidvivske City Bailiffs’ Service.
10.  The sum awarded to the applicant by the judgment of 15 March 2001 was paid to him in two instalments in February and May 2004.
7.  The applicant was born in 1953 and was serving a sentence in Nazilli prison at the time of lodging his application.
8.  On 5 January and 30 June 1994, and on 11 July 1995, the public prosecutor at the İzmir State Security Court issued arrest warrants in respect of the applicant on suspicion of his involvement with the PKK[1].
9.  On 23 May 2001 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody by police officers at the Diyarbakır Security Directorate. According to the arrest protocol, signed by a police officer and the applicant, the latter was arrested at 18.00 p.m. and was told of his rights, in particular, the right to object to the prolongation of his arrest and detention to a judge.
10.  On an unspecified date[2], the applicant’s wife filed a petition with the Diyarbakır public prosecutor’s office and requested information as to where her husband was being held and when he would be brought before the public prosecutor. She submitted that her husband was arrested on 23 May 2001 at around 15.00 p.m. On 24 May 2001 the public prosecutor informed the applicant’s wife that her husband was held in custody on account of his involvement with the PKK.
11.  The Government submitted that the applicant was taken for a medical examination at Diyarbakır State Hospital on the day of his arrest and on 24 and 25 May 2001. They maintained that on 24 May 2001 the İzmir Security Directorate requested the transfer of the applicant from Diyarbakır to İzmir and that the applicant arrived, accompanied by a police officer from the Diyarbakır State Security Directorate, by plane, in İzmir on 25 May 2001 at 14.30 p.m.
12.  On 25 May 2001 the applicant was handed over to the police officers at the İzmir Security Directorate. On the same day, the public prosecutor at the İzmir State Security Court authorised the extension of the applicant’s detention until 28 May 2001.
13.  On the same day, the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Atatürk Hospital at 14.50 p.m.
14.  On 26 May 2001 the applicant was requested to identify other suspects that he had mentioned in his statements, by looking at photographs in the archives. The identification report signed by the applicant and four police officers indicated that the applicant had previously been interrogated and that he was illiterate. On 27 May 2001 the applicant’s statement was taken by two police officers at the Anti-Terror Branch of the İzmir Security Directorate.
15.  On 28 May 2001 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Atatürk Hospital at 13.05 p.m.
16.  On the same day the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor at the İzmir State Security Court and before the İzmir State Security Court. The latter remanded him in custody since it considered that there was a risk of him escaping.
17.  On 9 May 2002 the applicant was convicted of being a member of a terrorist organisation (Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code) and sentenced to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment.
4.  The first and the third applicants were born in 1946 and 1959 respectively, they both live in Bełchatów. The second applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Szczerców.
5.  On 17 March 1989 the applicants filed with the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) an action for payment against the Bełchatow Coal Mine in Rogowiec. On 17 November 1989 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court gave judgment. Both parties to the proceedings appealed.
6.  On 7 March 1991 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) quashed the contested judgment and remitted the case.
7.  On 7 June 1993 an expert submitted his opinion to the court. The court held hearings on the following dates: 16 September 1993, 28 June 1994 and 28 July 1994.
8.  On 11 August 1994 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court gave judgment. Both parties to the proceedings appealed.
9.  On 24 March 1995 the Łódź Court of Appeal quashed the contested judgment and referred the case to the lower instance for reconsideration.
10.  On 22 February, 26 September, 5 November, 10 December 1996 and 3 June 1997 the Regional Court held hearings.
11.  On 11 June 1997 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court gave judgment. The applicants appealed.
12.  On 17 December 1997 the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) amended the contested judgment and ordered the company B to pay a higher amount of compensation to the applicants. On 11 February 1999 the applicants lodged a cassation appeal against this judgment with the Supreme Court.
13.  On 2 September 1999 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ cassation appeal as unsubstantiated. On 16 March 2000 the Supreme Court, at the defendant’s lawyer’s request, amended the judgment of 2 September 1999 and ordered the applicants to pay the cassation fees. The decision was served on the applicants on 20 March 2000.
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in the town of Novogrodovka, the Donetsk Region.
5.  On 8 July 1997 and 22 February 2000 the Novogrodovka City Court (hereafter “the City Court”) awarded the applicant a total of UAH 33,277[1] against the Novogrodovskaya State-owned Coal Mine No. 2 (hereafter “the NCM”) for arrears of salary, redundancy pay and industrial disability benefits. The judgments became final and were remitted to the Novogrodovka City Bailiffs’ Service for compulsory enforcement.
6.  In 1998 and 1999 the Novgorodsky City Court and the Donetsk Regional Court rejected as unsubstantiated the applicant’s complaints against the Rossiya Association (the NCM’s managing company between August 1997 and March 1998) and the NCM for their failure to pay in due time and in full the sum awarded to him by the judgment of 8 July 1997.
7.  In 1999 and 2000 the Prosecutor’s Office rejected on several occasions the applicant’s criminal complaints against officials of the Bailiffs’ Service.
8.  On 24 May 2001 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy decided to wind up the NCM, designating the Ukrvuglrestrukrutizatsyya Company as its successor.
9.  The applicant instituted proceedings in the City Court against the Bailiffs’ Service for failure to execute the decisions in his favour. On 14 August 2001, the court rejected the applicant’s claim, finding no fault had been committed by the Bailiffs, who had demonstrated due diligence in enforcing the judgments in the applicant’s favour, but the NCM’s lack of funds had prevented them from securing the immediate payment of the awards.
10.  In 2002 and 2003, due to the on-going bankruptcy proceedings against the NCM, the Bailiffs’ Service forwarded on several occasions the applicant’s writs of execution to the NCM’s liquidation commission, which refused to accept them, referring to the company’s lack of funds.
11.  The judgments of 8 July 1997 and 22 February 2000 remain partially unenforced, the outstanding debts being UAH 3,736[2] and 2,857[3] respectively.